Main Ideas
The main idea of the text “Dangers and opportunities of direct-to-consumer advertising” is that the average American television viewer spends significantly more time watching drug advertisements than they do seeing their primary care physician, up to nine drug commercials per day and roughly 16 hours per year (Parekh & Shrank, 2018). $5 billion was spent on pharmaceutical advertising in the year, a 62% increase in spending since 2012 (Parekh & Shrank, 2018). This provides yet another evidence to show that this medium is not functioning as intended and forces people to think about alternatives to the current quo because of its prevalence.
Author’s Viewpoint
The authors argue that DTC advertising is increasing expenses for the system and patients while failing to give patients accurate and balanced information. One would anticipate the government to be more invested in distributing high-value information to patients and providers in this time of rising healthcare costs and dubious sustainability of entitlements. Government members should consider changing their role to guarantee that DTC advertising achieves its goal more effectively (Parekh & Shrank, 2018). Additionally, the current concerns with this form of marketing have arisen due to a confluence of regulatory constraints and resource shortages. A collective group of various individuals from the healthcare ecosystem appears to have a rare opportunity to collaborate and develop ideas that maximize the advantages and reduce the hazards of DTC advertising.
Evidence provided by the authors points to the fact that, of the 97 advertisements they examined, only 26% provided quantitative information on efficacy and benefit (Parekh & Shrank, 2018). 0% provided quantitative information on risks, and 13% promoted the off-label use of drugs, which is prohibited by the FDA (Parekh & Shrank, 2018). This evidence shows that the initial intent of DTC television commercials is not being met.
They reference numerous research studies that argue that the FDA guidelines are not sufficiently prescriptive on the scope and structure of quantitative benefits and risks disclosure. For instance, one study discovered that while few DTC commercials gave quantitative information on treatment benefits, none did so for hazards (Parekh & Shrank, 2018). Since these advertisements are not specifically required to include this information, one would counter that it is not strange that they do not. Additionally, increased bureaucratic red tape has undermined the FDA’s ability to enforce DTC advertising regulations (Parekh & Shrank, 2018). As an illustration, they consider the drop in warnings following the Department of Health and Human Services’ requirement that the Office of Chief Counsel evaluate all regulatory warnings.
Source Reputability
This article was published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. The text is from a reputable source because this journal is one of the oldest and most authoritative journals on general medicine. The main emphasis of the publication is on the latest trends in medicine and biology.
With more than 100,000 subscribers to the print edition, the online audience is significantly larger and exceeds one million readers. Most publications are aimed at representatives of science; that is, they assume that the reader has a certain professional level. This is one of the most cited and popular medical periodicals worldwide, so this source is reputable.
Reference
Parekh, N., & Shrank, W. H. (2018). Dangers and opportunities of direct-to-consumer advertising. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(1), 586-587. Web.